RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Parables are obviously parables. So I guess if you don't like the historic or literal words... you just decide that it is some sort of metaphorical story?

So are the words of Jesus metaphorical or literal text? Was the life of Jesus literal or not?

How do you decide which parts are literal and which are not?

Jesus talked about Noah and the Ark in Matthew 24... was he a liar? Or maybe Jesus never said those words? If so, what let's you know which words of Jesus are literal and which are untrue?

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-approves-plan-to-redeploy-several-hundred-ground-forces-into-somalia/ar-AAXlbyi, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Gen 1 and 2 are not history but poetry. There is history, prophecy, apocalyptic literature, songs, analogies, metaphors and they are all true WHEN read in context and take into consideration the type of literature they are.

The gospels are written as history and part of that history is Christ teaching with parables.

Not every train leaving Chicago at 60 mph in 7th grade math is a real train.

---

Yes true, but they always seemed to go in opposite directions and the other train never went the exact same speed.

---

I still don't like Ms Douglas. BAT!!!

ShooterTX said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Dr. Russell Lester?

---

is that your source?

---

Sure, it was rumored that he gave Jesus a B in New Testament. Truly the grade point molester.

Questioning and examining core beliefs and how they came to be is always a good thing. I don't endorse everything Andy stanley talks about. Much of it is pretty basic. But he does make me think from a different perspective on a couple of topics

Been awhile since I listened, but two good series pertain to "the Bible tells me so/the Bible says it, that settles it" https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/your-move-with-andy-stanley-podcast/id211872550?i=1000486841827. (This is the one I found on a quick search)

And how/why the current Bible came to be 4 part series. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/your-move-with-andy-stanley-podcast/id211872550?i=1000533427042 (pt 1)

My one core belief hasn't changed. But have a lot more introspection of my own shortcomings and (usually wrong) judgements in looking for unity in believers rather than looking for reasons to divide. There is only one table, and no person owns it.

Osodecentx said:

---

I self identify as a fundamentalist.
I believe evolution is the method God chose to create. I don't see where the Bible rules out evolution. The more you learn the more amazed I am at Creation

---

"Science is the study of the handiwork of God."

Coke Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

I self identify as a fundamentalist.
I believe evolution is the method God chose to create. I don't see where the Bible rules out evolution. The more you learn the more amazed I am at Creation

---

"Science is the study of the handiwork of God."

---

Well said

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

Looks like there are numerous parallel convos taking place, so I'll just ignore them and talk to you directly. I think you're doing a great job walking yourself out of an overly "fundamentalist" (though I think that term is a misnomer), literalist view of the Bible. Learning to read the Bible correctly, in its historical context and for its intended purposes (as we try to read all other written works) reveals so much more truth. E.g., Genesis is not a historical textbook, but Genesis 1 and 2 were written to illustrate to us different truths about the relationship between God and man. Go looking for literal history/science (which were not concepts on the minds of the writers), and you miss the more important lessons. This goes to what we mean by Biblical inerrancy. I believe the Bible is God-inspired and gives us the lessons it is intended to give us, in a perfect way. Try to use it as a hammer or a screwdriver instead, and it is much less useful.

Heaven and Hell ... I think they are the ultimate conclusion of either connection to God or rejection of God. People either grow closer to God, by responding to the amount of truth that is revealed to them, or they intentionally and consciously reject it. Put differently, if you're worried about being in right relationship to God and making efforts, then you aren't headed towards Hell. You go to Hell because you choose to go your own way instead (which many people choose). I like CS Lewis and The Great Divorce here. We don't know all the mechanics about how God deals with people who haven't heard, or didn't hear in an acceptable context. Do you get a shot later? Romans 1 says nature speaks to God so no man is without excuse. Lots of possible theories. But guess what. We don't need to know. See wheat and tares parable. This is up to God - not us - I do trust that God loves us and wouldn't send people to Hell unless they've decided they don't want relationship with Him but would rather rule themselves.

I don't agree on the historical Jesus point. Read lots about that and lots of criticisms of it. I don't think it stands up. But because of my above point, I don't sweat it too much. I'll continue to believe Jesus is God and the Path, but I don't expect God to send people to Hell over historical debates 2000 years hence.

I think a lot of issues "smart" people have with Christianity are a misallocation of the burden of proof in matters of faith, or simply trying to see faith and religion through the same lens you see science. I'd invoke CS Lewis again here and say Mere Christianity is a solid read. Nothing proves that any exact approach to Christianity is "true" or perfect, but you can certainly make the case that its base and most important claims are plausible. At that point, does the application you're choosing make you a better person, bring you closer to God, make you a better husband/father/son/brother/neighbor? If so, keep going in that direction and don't worry so much about arguments.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I think that Protestant fundamentalism had done a lot of harm. Christianity is such a more complex faith than many would allow us to believe. I think the core problem has been fundamentalism's move away from the worship of G-d in Christ to the worship of the Bible. My thoughts on your specific questions:

1. The Bible is not and does not proclaim to be a scientific document. It should be read in the context of the ANE, where people did not have a post-Enlightenment view of history or science. Genesis never was intended to be a historical account, but it's true in the sense that G-d created the world not because he had to but he chose to do so.

2. Great answer above - Hell is not Milton but estrangement from G-d.

3. Always a tough one. Don't think I have a great answer. Should not really affect one's faith ... that's between G-d and His creation. Some things are transcendent and we cannot fully understand.

4. Theologians are always finding new things to write papers. Just men making up stuff 2,000 years later that likely fits their current world view. What is more reliable, accounts closer to the time an event occurred or some professor in an office two millennia later postulating about stuff?

5. Agree with above. The Bible is amazingly consistent across textual variations given the realities of the time during which it was written. I do not really adhere the the "inerrant" argument as deployed by fundamentalists but I would agree it is inerrant in its message and teaching in totality, the truth about G-d's relationship with His creation.

---

Thank you for taking the time to write out your thoughts!

Especially love the final point you made. The Bible is a beautiful piece of God breathed literature and art that has a consistent revolutionary and progressive message - it is inerrant in these truths.

---

Of course. I really like your last sentence - very well said. It is no accident that Paul described the Gospel as skandalon. We are a fallen Creation, and as noted, every person tends to "really believe" the parts of the Bible that fits their world view and "conveniently ignore" other parts. Ultimately, Jesus' teachings and the Bible are so offensive to the Culture precisely because it is so counter-cultural and opposed ever innate desire of the Fallen Creation.

Unfortunately, throughout history diverse groups of Christians have perverted or emphasized parts of the biblical message to support a particular political program of the day. I will give credit to the Roman Catholic Church, which seems to do a better job of anyone in holding a consistent, theological position across the Culture. Protestant churches generally have done a relatively poor job of letting Christianity drive its Cultural word view, so it finds fundamentalist churches dedicating way too much time to issues like abortion or homosexuality while ignoring teachings on greed and charity as well as mainline Protestants ignoring those issues while adopting basically a Cultural worldview and bending Scripture to it.

There is truth to the saying that the biggest problem with Christianity is Christians. I try to remind myself of that and realize we're all fallen and do a pretty terrible job as the Church much of the time. I think another thing that was lost in the Protestant Reformation was once the Church was democratized and de-centralized, there were lots of immature Christians that gained "power" for lack of a better word and created denominations and churches without the Tradition and guidance of Rome. This was good in some ways but bad in others. I type that as a non-Catholic who has grown to appreciate Rome as I have gotten older.

I'll leave you with being a Christian is hard. We make it too easy. Don't walk away from your faith because of feelings that a particular religious tradition may not fit in your current cultural worldview. The Way is difficult especially in the context of a 21st Century America.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I think that Protestant fundamentalism had done a lot of harm. Christianity is such a more complex faith than many would allow us to believe. I think the core problem has been fundamentalism's move away from the worship of G-d in Christ to the worship of the Bible. My thoughts on your specific questions:

1. The Bible is not and does not proclaim to be a scientific document. It should be read in the context of the ANE, where people did not have a post-Enlightenment view of history or science. Genesis never was intended to be a historical account, but it's true in the sense that G-d created the world not because he had to but he chose to do so.

2. Great answer above - Hell is not Milton but estrangement from G-d.

3. Always a tough one. Don't think I have a great answer. Should not really affect one's faith ... that's between G-d and His creation. Some things are transcendent and we cannot fully understand.

4. Theologians are always finding new things to write papers. Just men making up stuff 2,000 years later that likely fits their current world view. What is more reliable, accounts closer to the time an event occurred or some professor in an office two millennia later postulating about stuff?

5. Agree with above. The Bible is amazingly consistent across textual variations given the realities of the time during which it was written. I do not really adhere the the "inerrant" argument as deployed by fundamentalists but I would agree it is inerrant in its message and teaching in totality, the truth about G-d's relationship with His creation.

---

Thank you for taking the time to write out your thoughts!

Especially love the final point you made. The Bible is a beautiful piece of God breathed literature and art that has a consistent revolutionary and progressive message - it is inerrant in these truths.

---

Be careful about identifying Christianity with any political movement. Revolutionaries always wanted to enlist Jesus to their cause, and he pointedly refused.

Interesting thread.

I consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, but maybe not in the way many take the phrase. That is, I believe the fundamentals of Christianity. Specifically that Jesus came to Earth to live among us as one of us, living a perfect life then dying as an atonement to save all who would accept His gift. I believe Christ rose from the dead and sits beside the Father, and as he promised is preparing a place for all who choose to follow him.

The problem is free will. CS Lewis covered the problem of Hell better than I can explain, but rather than plagiarize him, I will simply recommend Lewis, non-canon though he be, as a guide to help understand the pernicious threat to our souls we face, and the many efforts made by God to give us every possible way to find our way home.

No one is compelled to go to Heaven, just as no one is compelled to study in school, no one is compelled to always be honest, no one is compelled to be faithful to their spouse, no one is compelled to always work hard, and so on.

I don't know about you, but I'm lucky if I make it an hour into my day before I have screwed something up. Jesus said even our thoughts count as sin, so I know I don't have a great track record, certainly no way I enter the father's presence boasting about my works.

The reason I bring that up, is because the Father knows we struggle, and a plain reading of the Gospels makes clear that Jesus is no taskmaster hoping we will fail, but a brother who helps find us and get us home safe. We just have to agree to go home.

The rest is details.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I think that Protestant fundamentalism had done a lot of harm. Christianity is such a more complex faith than many would allow us to believe. I think the core problem has been fundamentalism's move away from the worship of G-d in Christ to the worship of the Bible. My thoughts on your specific questions:

1. The Bible is not and does not proclaim to be a scientific document. It should be read in the context of the ANE, where people did not have a post-Enlightenment view of history or science. Genesis never was intended to be a historical account, but it's true in the sense that G-d created the world not because he had to but he chose to do so.

2. Great answer above - Hell is not Milton but estrangement from G-d.

3. Always a tough one. Don't think I have a great answer. Should not really affect one's faith ... that's between G-d and His creation. Some things are transcendent and we cannot fully understand.

4. Theologians are always finding new things to write papers. Just men making up stuff 2,000 years later that likely fits their current world view. What is more reliable, accounts closer to the time an event occurred or some professor in an office two millennia later postulating about stuff?

5. Agree with above. The Bible is amazingly consistent across textual variations given the realities of the time during which it was written. I do not really adhere the the "inerrant" argument as deployed by fundamentalists but I would agree it is inerrant in its message and teaching in totality, the truth about G-d's relationship with His creation.

---

Thank you for taking the time to write out your thoughts!

Especially love the final point you made. The Bible is a beautiful piece of God breathed literature and art that has a consistent revolutionary and progressive message - it is inerrant in these truths.

---

Be careful about identifying Christianity with any political movement. Revolutionaries always wanted to enlist Jesus to their cause, and he pointedly refused.

---

Sam, I'd like you to know I starred your post.

One of my challenges as a father was finding a non-political church in which to raise my kids. It's not easy. Had my stomach turned many times in politically right wing churches (Republican politics from the pulpit) and politically left wing churches (Democrat politics from the pulpit). You mix religion and politics and you get ... politics. Fortunately, we found a good one where people from both sides of the aisle try to focus on the Gospel. Not saying we get everything right at all, but we at least avoid that one trap.

---

Thanks, I'm glad to hear you all found a good place.

FWIW, I did not read the comment as revolutionary in a political sense but from a theology-cultural sense. Even today, Christianity is revolutionary at its core because it offends virtually every cultural-political movement (or it should). But as noted, too many churches take a political stance and then just highlight those Red-Letter Verses that fit their agenda and ignore the rest.

J.R. said:

---

This thread is entirely too civilized and no judgement. Refreshing. Read everyone's take and it's thought provoking.

---

Up yours!

Have a great day

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I think that Protestant fundamentalism had done a lot of harm. Christianity is such a more complex faith than many would allow us to believe. I think the core problem has been fundamentalism's move away from the worship of G-d in Christ to the worship of the Bible. My thoughts on your specific questions:

1. The Bible is not and does not proclaim to be a scientific document. It should be read in the context of the ANE, where people did not have a post-Enlightenment view of history or science. Genesis never was intended to be a historical account, but it's true in the sense that G-d created the world not because he had to but he chose to do so.

2. Great answer above - Hell is not Milton but estrangement from G-d.

3. Always a tough one. Don't think I have a great answer. Should not really affect one's faith ... that's between G-d and His creation. Some things are transcendent and we cannot fully understand.

4. Theologians are always finding new things to write papers. Just men making up stuff 2,000 years later that likely fits their current world view. What is more reliable, accounts closer to the time an event occurred or some professor in an office two millennia later postulating about stuff?

5. Agree with above. The Bible is amazingly consistent across textual variations given the realities of the time during which it was written. I do not really adhere the the "inerrant" argument as deployed by fundamentalists but I would agree it is inerrant in its message and teaching in totality, the truth about G-d's relationship with His creation.

---

Thank you for taking the time to write out your thoughts!

Especially love the final point you made. The Bible is a beautiful piece of God breathed literature and art that has a consistent revolutionary and progressive message - it is inerrant in these truths.

---

Be careful about identifying Christianity with any political movement. Revolutionaries always wanted to enlist Jesus to their cause, and he pointedly refused.

---

Sam, I'd like you to know I starred your post.

One of my challenges as a father was finding a non-political church in which to raise my kids. It's not easy. Had my stomach turned many times in politically right wing churches (Republican politics from the pulpit) and politically left wing churches (Democrat politics from the pulpit). You mix religion and politics and you get ... politics. Fortunately, we found a good one where people from both sides of the aisle try to focus on the Gospel. Not saying we get everything right at all, but we at least avoid that one trap.

---

I agree.
I think religion can (and should) inform your political decisions, as religion is usually the basis for your moral values. I do not think that a political movement should claim to be a wing of a religion. I have no problem with a politician citing their religious beliefs as the basis for a specific position... but that does invite the opposition to challenge their specific religious beliefs and/or religious interpretations. I find it odd when someone makes such a statement, and then is shocked when someone else challenges those religious beliefs. If you didn't want to invite that challenge, then why did you bring it up in the first place? If a politician doesn't want to defend their religious beliefs in public, then they shouldn't talk about religion in public.... it's really quite simple.

But the OP had nothing to do with politics... so I'm pleased that so far we have steered away from dragging that into the conversation. Let's endeavor to keep it that way.

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

Traditional or orthodox or evangelical theology are dead.
Science and the In enlightenment changed everything about humans understanding of how this world is put together.
Two notions are current in theological thinking.
1. Physics, chemistry and biology are of a physical nature and there is no outside power that can change to the realities that physics chemistry and biology. Nature teaches us every day that we are simply not in control and neither is An old theism. Covid happens, Ukrainian wars happen, earthquakes happen, Saddam Hussein happened, and tornadoes happen and none of them can be affected by a conception of a supernatural God who is able somehow to change physics, chemistry or biology or our human's free will.
2. The nature of God although not science or supernatural is spiritual. The foundational and overwhelming biblical witness is that God is love and grace and forgiveness. Out of these concepts of God's true nature of love, grace and forgiveness we build our theologies and a theologies do not include a hell which condemns people eternally.

Evangelicals will rush to defend the old theism and miss the point. We live in secular world with secularist understandings of the cosmos and life as humans.
Now the evangelicals can learn to reach secular people with God as love, grace and forgiveness and justice for the poor or they can keep defending the old theism and keep losing people to the Christian faith.

ShooterTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

Traditional or orthodox or evangelical theology are dead.
Science and the In enlightenment changed everything about humans understanding of how this world is put together.
Two notions are current sign theological thinking.
1. Physics, chemistry and biology or of a physical nature and there is no outside power that to the fact that physics chemistry and biology. Nature teaches us every day that we are simply not in control and neither is An old theism. Covid happens, Ukrainian wars happened common earthquakes happened, Saddam Hussein happened, and tornadoes happen and none of them can be affected by a conception of a supernatural God who is somehow to change physics, chemistry or biology or our human's free will.
2. The nature of God although not science or supernatural is spiritual. The foundational and overwhelming biblical witness is that God is love and grace and forgiveness. Out of these concepts of God's true nature of love, grace and forgiveness we build our theologies and a theologies do not include a hell which condemns people eternally.

---

Another post by Waco, and the same 2 results:

1. Is that supposed to be English?
2. This guy doesn't understand God, the Bible, or Christianity at all.

---

My apologies. I have tried to clean up my English
"
Traditional or orthodox or evangelical theology are dead.
Science and the In enlightenment changed everything about humans understanding of how this world is put together.
Two notions are current in theological thinking.
1. Physics, chemistry and biology are of a physical nature and there is no outside power that can change to the realities that physics chemistry and biology. Nature teaches us every day that we are simply not in control and neither is An old theism. Covid happens, Ukrainian wars happen, earthquakes happen, Saddam Hussein happened, and tornadoes happen and none of them can be affected by a conception of a supernatural God who is able somehow to change physics, chemistry or biology or our human's free will.
2. The nature of God although not science or supernatural is spiritual. The foundational and overwhelming biblical witness is that God is love and grace and forgiveness. Out of these concepts of God's true nature of love, grace and forgiveness we build our theologies and a theologies do not include a hell which condemns people eternally."
I would be interested in your take on these 2 notions.

Waco1947 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

I am curious to see if there are any other bears out there who have deconstructed in the past or are currently in the process of deconstructing from their religion.

I personally grew up as a fundamental, evangelical Christian, and over the past year or so have had the time to actually reflect on what I believe. After going through a process of deconstruction and then reconstruction, my faith looks very different from a few years ago, but I am more rooted in my love & respect for Christ than ever before.

Here is just a high level view of some of the things that were challenging for me, and curious to hear if anyone also struggles with the same topics:

• Evolution - coming to the acceptance that Genesis is not a historical textbook on the formation of the universe, and that to not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution by the majority of Christian churches is head scratching
• Hell - I struggled (and still do) on the concept of hell. How a normal human being deserves to be tortured for infinite time for simply not believing in X, Y, Z
• Salvation - Similar to hell, but do un-reached people really deserve to be separated from God forever for simply being born to a particular geographic location?
• Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching.
• The Bible being inerrant - There are more variations in the original manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

---

Traditional or orthodox or evangelical theology are dead.
Science and the In enlightenment changed everything about humans understanding of how this world is put together.
Two notions are current sign theological thinking.
1. Physics, chemistry and biology or of a physical nature and there is no outside power that to the fact that physics chemistry and biology. Nature teaches us every day that we are simply not in control and neither is An old theism. Covid happens, Ukrainian wars happened common earthquakes happened, Saddam Hussein happened, and tornadoes happen and none of them can be affected by a conception of a supernatural God who is somehow to change physics, chemistry or biology or our human's free will.
2. The nature of God although not science or supernatural is spiritual. The foundational and overwhelming biblical witness is that God is love and grace and forgiveness. Out of these concepts of God's true nature of love, grace and forgiveness we build our theologies and a theologies do not include a hell which condemns people eternally.

---

Another post by Waco, and the same 2 results:

1. Is that supposed to be English?
2. This guy doesn't understand God, the Bible, or Christianity at all.

---

My apologies. I have tried to clean up my English
"
Traditional or orthodox or evangelical theology are dead.
Science and the In enlightenment changed everything about humans understanding of how this world is put together.
Two notions are current in theological thinking.
1. Physics, chemistry and biology are of a physical nature and there is no outside power that can change to the realities that physics chemistry and biology. Nature teaches us every day that we are simply not in control and neither is An old theism. Covid happens, Ukrainian wars happen, earthquakes happen, Saddam Hussein happened, and tornadoes happen and none of them can be affected by a conception of a supernatural God who is able somehow to change physics, chemistry or biology or our human's free will.
2. The nature of God although not science or supernatural is spiritual. The foundational and overwhelming biblical witness is that God is love and grace and forgiveness. Out of these concepts of God's true nature of love, grace and forgiveness we build our theologies and a theologies do not include a hell which condemns people eternally."
I would be interested in your take on these 2 notions.

---

Just to be clear...

Your position is that Christianity should not be a religion based upon absolute truths, but needs to be a religion which is flexible enough to change and adjust so that it will fit in with the current systems of belief that are popular at the time?

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Parables are obviously parables. So I guess if you don't like the historic or literal words... you just decide that it is some sort of metaphorical story?

So are the words of Jesus metaphorical or literal text? Was the life of Jesus literal or not?

How do you decide which parts are literal and which are not?

Jesus talked about Noah and the Ark in Matthew 24... was he a liar? Or maybe Jesus never said those words? If so, what let's you know which words of Jesus are literal and which are untrue?

---

Mythical rather than metaphorical. Jesus is a historical but the stories about him probably mythical like the virgin birth.
There is no historicity to any of these events but their historicity is not their point. There point is, and this is the key, is to engendered faith in God. Their intent is to say God is love and sent the Son to show us love. Literalism is gone.

Waco1947 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Parables are obviously parables. So I guess if you don't like the historic or literal words... you just decide that it is some sort of metaphorical story?

So are the words of Jesus metaphorical or literal text? Was the life of Jesus literal or not?

How do you decide which parts are literal and which are not?

Jesus talked about Noah and the Ark in Matthew 24... was he a liar? Or maybe Jesus never said those words? If so, what let's you know which words of Jesus are literal and which are untrue?

---

Mythical rather than metaphorical. Jesus is a historical but the stories about him probably mythical like the virgin birth.
There is no historicity to any of these events but their historicity is not their point. There point is, and this is the key, is to engendered faith in God. Their intent is to say God is love and sent the Son to show us love. Literalism is gone.

---

So a belief in Jesus is not much different than a belief in King Arthur or choosing to follow the ways of the Jedi?

For most people, mythical = manufactured.

Waco: "Traditional or orthodox or evangelical theology are dead."

With respect, that is an opinion, and in my opinion very much incorrect.

Waco1947 said:

---

Mythical rather than metaphorical. Jesus is a historical but the stories about him probably mythical like the virgin birth.
There is no historicity to any of these events but their historicity is not their point. There point is, and this is the key, is to engendered faith in God. Their intent is to say God is love and sent the Son to show us love. Literalism is gone.

---

I feel for you. I do pray for you daily. I'm not sure where to start with this ...

If Jesus had an earthly father, how did God send HIS son?

Why would his apostles follow a magician? If Jesus didn't perform miracles, then he was an outstanding magician. Why would many of them die for Him for myths? If there was no resurrection, why or how did Christianity spread AFTER His death? There were many false profits that followers as well, but when they died, so did their movement.

Have you honestly and logically looked at your beliefs? Your beliefs contradict the evidence as well as the earliest Church fathers.

No Christian believed your beliefs in the early church or up until the 20th century.

Waco1947 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Parables are obviously parables. So I guess if you don't like the historic or literal words... you just decide that it is some sort of metaphorical story?

So are the words of Jesus metaphorical or literal text? Was the life of Jesus literal or not?

How do you decide which parts are literal and which are not?

Jesus talked about Noah and the Ark in Matthew 24... was he a liar? Or maybe Jesus never said those words? If so, what let's you know which words of Jesus are literal and which are untrue?

---

Mythical rather than metaphorical. Jesus is a historical but the stories about him probably mythical like the virgin birth.
There is no historicity to any of these events but their historicity is not their point. There point is, and this is the key, is to engendered faith in God. Their intent is to say God is love and sent the Son to show us love. Literalism is gone.

---

No.

The Bible is a book of many lessons, including that miracles happen.

I understand this is difficult for someone to accept, if they understand nothing beyond what their senses tell them, but this is important:

We are more than just animals, more than brute instinct and matter.

Every life matters, because each and every human being is a miracle, designed and created for a unique identity and purpose, and part of Life is discovering that purpose and identity, and crafting our own contribution to Creation.

The Bible accounts show God is in control, to the point that Jesus can turn water to win, make the blind see, walk on the seas, and raise the dead. That these things are done for love and hope in no way makes them less real.

ShooterTX said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Parables are obviously parables. So I guess if you don't like the historic or literal words... you just decide that it is some sort of metaphorical story?

So are the words of Jesus metaphorical or literal text? Was the life of Jesus literal or not?

How do you decide which parts are literal and which are not?

Jesus talked about Noah and the Ark in Matthew 24... was he a liar? Or maybe Jesus never said those words? If so, what let's you know which words of Jesus are literal and which are untrue?

---

Mythical rather than metaphorical. Jesus is a historical but the stories about him probably mythical like the virgin birth.
There is no historicity to any of these events but their historicity is not their point. There point is, and this is the key, is to engendered faith in God. Their intent is to say God is love and sent the Son to show us love. Literalism is gone.

---

So a belief in Jesus is not much different than a belief in King Arthur or choosing to follow the ways of the Jedi?

For most people, mythical = manufactured.

---

Mot O said. God is love, justice for the poor, and grace and that's foundational. The good news story is that Jesus is the Son of God and a historical person. Each gospel writer shaped the story of his life to proclaim the good news of Jesus and that God's reign of love, justice for the poor and grace are here.
King Arthur is not the "good news" about life.
Jesus continues to call my faith in him and God's reign.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I'm curious about this.

If you remove the Bible as a reliable, truthful text; then where does your understanding of Jesus come from? The words of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, make the claim that the Bible is true and "the Word of God". How can we use the writings about Jesus in the New Testament as a basis for religion, if we also discount the words of Jesus in the New Testament, when he describes the validity of the Old Testament?

So where is this alternative source for knowing/understanding God & Jesus?

---

Curious, why does the Bible have to be a literal historical text to have value for religious or philosophical believe?

Jesus talked in parables. Why wouldn't the Gospels follow that model? Paul's writinfs and the Acts of the Apostles seem more historical in nature. But wouldn't they use stories to make points?

Do I believe the Old Testament verbatim? I would say no, like any document that started from oral tradition, there is hyperbole to make a point. Did the walls of Jericho literally fall? Or did the Jews win a battle they shouldn't have? Doesn't change the lesson.

But, I am a Catholic and according to many going to hell for following a false prophet, right?

I do love this Board, not afraid to tackle the tough subjects. Historical accuracy of Bible, abortion. Trump. Heck of a week...

---

Parables are obviously parables. So I guess if you don't like the historic or literal words... you just decide that it is some sort of metaphorical story?

So are the words of Jesus metaphorical or literal text? Was the life of Jesus literal or not?

How do you decide which parts are literal and which are not?

Jesus talked about Noah and the Ark in Matthew 24... was he a liar? Or maybe Jesus never said those words? If so, what let's you know which words of Jesus are literal and which are untrue?

---

Mythical rather than metaphorical. Jesus is a historical but the stories about him probably mythical like the virgin birth.
There is no historicity to any of these events but their historicity is not their point. There point is, and this is the key, is to engendered faith in God. Their intent is to say God is love and sent the Son to show us love. Literalism is gone.

---

No.

The Bible is a book of many lessons, including that miracles happen.

I understand this is difficult for someone to accept, if they understand nothing beyond what their senses tell them, but this is important:

We are more than just animals, more than brute instinct and matter.

Every life matters, because each and every human being is a miracle, designed and created for a unique identity and purpose, and part of Life is discovering that purpose and identity, and crafting our own contribution to Creation.

The Bible accounts show God is in control, to the point that Jesus can turn water to win, make the blind see, walk on the seas, and raise the dead. That these things are done for love and hope in no way makes them less real.

---

These acts fail the test of historicity but What's a gospel writers could care less about the actual hisstericity and cared more about the good news of Jesus Christ which is that he is God's Son and that God's reign is here.
The gospels never pretend to be about history. They are not a historical record, memories, or newspaper accounts. The gospels were written do engender faith and to make them do anything else rob them of their power, Especially with secular folk. The church will continue to shrink in membership membership and power and authority as long as we ask people to believe impossible doctrines of traditional faith. A new theism is called for. Gravity is a son of a gun because it defies "God's control and people know it.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Well it was a nice thread

---

Flag growl towel. It's nothing but hate. Do that favor for me

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Well it was a nice thread

---

Yup. It was.

Waco1947 said:

---

These acts fail the test of historicity but What's a gospel writers could care less about the actual hisstericity and cared more about the good news of Jesus Christ which is that he is God's Son and that God's reign is here.
The gospels never pretend to be about history. They are not a historical record, memories, or newspaper accounts. The gospels were written do engender faith and to make them do anything else rob them of their power, Especially with secular folk. The church will continue to shrink in membership membership and power and authority as long as we ask people to believe impossible doctrines of traditional faith. A new theism is called for. Gravity is a son of a gun because it defies "God's control and people know it.

---

From where do you get this Theology?
How did you come about it?
When was it first postulated?
From what century can you trace this back?